Nigel Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: I wonder whether a more workable/realistic alternative is to introduce > artificial inefficiencies into society such that more people need to work. >
See Frederic Bastiat, "The Candlemaker's Petition:" http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph3.html#S.1, Ch.7, A Petition See also: "A Negative Railroad:" http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html#S.1, Ch.17, A Negative Railroad QUOTE: M. Simiot raises the following question: Should there be a break in the tracks at Bordeaux on the railroad from Paris to Spain? He answers the question in the affirmative and offers a number of reasons, of which I propose to examine only this: 'There should be a break in the railroad from Paris to Bayonne at Bordeaux; for, if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that city, this will be profitable for boatmen, porters, owners of hotels, etc.' Here again we see clearly how the interests of those who perform services are given priority over the interests of the consumers. But if Bordeaux has a right to profit from a break in the tracks, and if this profit is consistent with the public interest, then Angoulême, Poitiers, Tours, Orléans, and, in fact, all the intermediate points, including Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., etc., ought also to demand breaks in the tracks, on the ground of the general interest—in the interest, that is, of domestic industry—for the more there are of these breaks in the line, the greater will be the amount paid for storage, porters, and cartage at every point along the way. By this means, we shall end by having a railroad composed of a whole series of breaks in the tracks, i.e., a *negative railroad*. END QUOTE Put that way, artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is ridiculous. - Jed
